Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release: January 13, 1998

Ohio Introduces New Paroling Guidelines

(Columbus) -- Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
Director Reginald A. Wilkinson today introduced revised release guidelines for use by the
Ohio Parole Board. "These guidelines are designed to better identify the risk of
inmates re-offending," said Wilkinson. "Our goal is to utilize state of the art
techniques so that decisions on whether or not to release offenders are made with public
safety uppermost in our minds." The new guidelines will take effect on March 1, 1998
and will affect approximately 33,000 of the departments 48,000 inmates.

The revised guidelines were developed by the Ohio Parole Board
in concert with Dr. Peter B. Hoffman, former staff director of the U.S. Parole Commission
and principal technical advisor to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. "As part of our
effort to improve parole decision-making, we contacted Dr. Hoffman in November of 1995 and
asked him to help us develop guidelines that are more in synch with todays complex
justice system," said Parole Board Chair Margarette Ghee. "Dr. Hoffman, who
serves as a consultant to the department, is one of the most experienced consultants in
the nation regarding both federal and state parole guideline systems," said Ghee.
"The changes driven by Ohios "truth in sentencing" law (Senate Bill
2) make the new guidelines even more timely."

The guidelines consist of a two-dimensional grid (attached). One
axis lists categories that encompass "seriousness of offense." The other axis
allows the Board to assess "risk of recidivism" in four categories. A
recommended range of time to serve (in months) is located at each of the 52 gridline
intersections. The Board may depart from the guidelines in cases where there are
substantial aggravating circumstances such as serious prison misconduct or mitigating
circumstances such as outstanding institutional behavior and program completion. Thus,
institutional conduct may be viewed as a third dimension to the guideline grid. The Board
will provide the offender with specific, written reasons for its decision.

The new guidelines will also allow the Board to inform most
inmates of their presumptive release date the first time they see the Board. These dates
may be established up to ten years from the date of the hearing, and will be contingent on
good institutional behavior as well as on the prisoners participation in
rehabilitative programming.

For those offenders who may serve more than ten years, the Board
will schedule reconsideration hearings after the initial ten-year period has been served.
Prisoners serving time for sex offenses or life sentences will not be given a presumptive
release date. In those cases the Board will hold an "open" hearing at the time
the inmate is considered for release.

"The revised guidelines differ from the former guidelines
in four fundamental ways," said Wilkinson. "First, they address the total
amount of time to be served before release to the community, not just the increments of
time between hearings. Second, they focus more directly on the seriousness of the total
offense and behavior. Third, with the caveat that predicting human behavior is never an
exact science, the new guidelines employ a revised recidivism prediction instrument that
will provide substantially more accurate results and which can be scored more
consistently. Finally, rather than being informed of the date of their next parole
hearing, offenders will be told exactly when they can expect to be released. As long as
their behavior is good, and they sincerely participate in their own rehabilitation, they
can reasonably expect to go home at that time," concluded Wilkinson.

Revising the parole process in general has been a focus for the
department since 1991. The new guidelines cap an effort that includes: conducting
administrative reviews of serious parole failures (1992), formal notification of parole
hearings for victims (1992), modification of the parole guidelines (1993), development of
internal audit standards (1993), comprehensive offender background investigations for
those entering prison without pre-sentence investigations (1994), accreditation by the
American Correctional Association (1995), implementation of a revised parole revocation
process for appropriate technical violators which provides graduated sanctions as an
alternative to returning them to prison (1995), review and assessment of the risk
instrument and parole guidelines (with Dr. Hoffman, 1995), the addition of a victim
advocate to the Parole Board (1996) the opening of "Full Board" hearings to
victims, inmate advocates, prosecutors, judges and the media, and giving the public
greater access to Parole Board records (1997). The Parole Board has also benefited from
technology, conducting some parole hearings via videoconferencing and issuing laptop
computers to staff to replace bulky, unwieldy inmate records.

For more information, please contact the Ohio Parole Board at
(614) 752-1200.

PAROLE GUIDELINES CHART  1998

Applicable Guideline Range in Months to be served Before Release
by Offense Category and Criminal History/Risk Score. The highlighted numbers illustrate
the number of months to be served.

Offense Category

Criminal History/Risk Score

(0 or 1)

(2, 3, or 4)

(5 or 6)

(7 or 8)

1

0-6

4-10

8-14

12-18

2

6-12

10-16

14-20

20-28

3

12-18

18-24

24-32

32-40

4

18-24

24-32

32-44

44-56

5

24-36

36-48

48-60

60-80

6

36-48

48-60

60-84

84-108

7

48-60

60-84

84-108

108-132

8

60-84

84-108

108-132

132-156

9

84-120

108-144

132-168

156-192

10

120-180

150-210

180-240

210-270

11

180-240

210-270

240-300

270-330

12

240-300

270-330

300-360

330-390

13

300-life

330-life

360-life

390-life

The Parole Guidelines Chart sets forth the applicable guideline
range (in total months to be served before release, including jail time) based on the
seriousness of the offenders current offense and the offenders criminal
history/risk score. The applicable guideline range presumes good institutional conduct,
fulfillment of any special conditions imposed by the Parole Board, and the development of
a suitable release plan. The Parole Board may depart from the guidelines (either upward or
downward) for good cause upon the provision of specific written reasons.

Aggravated murder carries an offense category of 13 while
vehicular homicide falls under category 7. The risk score is determined by adding points
for prior convictions, recent convictions (within three years of the current offense),
whether the offender was on parole, probation or escape status at the time of the offense,
any history of parole revocation (for violating parole), and age at the time of offense.

The applicable guideline range does not supersede any minimum or
maximum sentence applicable to the offender.